The parliamentarian has often stated that no crime that impacts only a few individual victims deserves capital punishment and, therefore, capital punishment should be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or well-being of the society as a whole. When gruesome crimes involving only one or two victims but generally viewed as deserving capital punishment are cited as possible counterexamples, the parliamentarian justifies his stance by saying that if those crimes deserve capital punishment, they cannot have impacted only a few individual victims. The parliamentarian's reasoning contains which one of the following errors?
A. It contains an unfounded acceptance of a popular opinion.
B. It relies on the parliamentarian's authority on legal or sociological matters.
C. It seeks to convince by emotion rather than logic.
D. It attempts to substantiate a viewpoint by appeal to an unrelated contemplation.
E. It assumes what it intends to substantiate.
Correct Answer: E
Argument construction
The parliamentarian states that no crime that impacts only a few victims (for example, murdering only one
or two people) deserves capital punishment. Therefore, on the basis of this statement, he concludes that
the capital punishment can be awarded only for the rarest of rare crimes that threaten the survival or wellbeing of the society as a whole.
Some people object to this conclusion and give as counterexamples such cases in which only one or two
people may have been killed but which were so brutal or gruesome as to make the general population
think that the murderer deserved to get capital punishment.
To this objection, the parliamentarian responds that if those cases really deserve capital punishment, then
they must have hurt more than a few individual victims.
Flaw in the argument
Let's dissect the argument.
The parliament' principle:
The parliamentarian decides the applicability of capital punishment for a crime by looking at the number of
victims impacted by the crime. If a crime impacts only a few individual victims, then capital punishment
should not be awarded.
The Parliamentarian's Conclusion/Assertion
Capital punishment should be awarded if and only if a crime impacts the survival or well-being of the whole
society.
How does he support this conclusion? Simply by citing his above principle.
People's counterexample:
Gruesome crimes that impact only one or two individual victims but are generally considered to deserve
capital punishment.
The parliamentarian's defense:
The counterexample doesn't ruffle the parliamentarian at all. Rather, he still uses his principle to respond
to it.
He says that if the gruesome crimes that are offered as a counterexample deserve capital punishment,
then they cannot have impacted only a few individuals. (Perhaps he would go down the road of showing
how the families or neighborhoods of the victims were impacted too, or how those crimes destabilized the
society as a whole and therefore merited capital punishment to preserve the well-being of the society etc.)
What is the flaw in the parliamentarian's reasoning?
He makes a conclusion based on nothing but his self-proclaimed stance treated as the absolute and
incontrovertible truth. When that conclusion is challenged by counterexamples, he again responds by
citing his stance, and suggests that if those counterexamples are true, then they must adhere to his
stance.
Let's analyze each option one by one.
Answer choices explanation:
[It contains an unfounded acceptance of a popular opinion.] This is incorrect. While the parliamentarian
does blindly accept his stance to be true ("unfounded acceptance"), the argument does not suggest that
this stance is popular and is the generally held opinion of most people.
[It relies on the parliamentarian's authority on legal or sociological matters.] This is incorrect. There is
nothing in the argument that suggests that the parliamentarian exercised his authority/power to enforce his
opinion.
[It seeks to convince by emotion rather than logic.] This is incorrect. There is nothing in the argument that
suggests that the parliamentarian appealed emotionally to sell his opinion.
[It attempts to substantiate a viewpoint by appeal to an unrelated contemplation.] This is incorrect. The
counter-argument advanced by the parliamentarian (in response to the counterexamples) is relevant to the
argument.
[It assumes what it intends to substantiate.] This is correct. It is in line with the analysis done above. The
parliamentarian's conclusion is rather a rephrase of his opinion.
Question 332:
Arguing for the acquittal of his client from the charge of murdering the client's wife, the attorney reasoned that since neither the garage nor the main door of the client's home was bolted on the night of the murder, a thief must have trespassed on the home to steal valuables, and upon an unexpected confrontation with the client's wife, murdered her.
The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in which one of the following?
A. The city administration could not find a solution to either water shortage or waterlogging problems; thus, it had to eat a humble pie and publicly accept responsibility for its lackluster approach.
B. Due to the work strike of railroads and the non-availability of sufficient buses during the rush hours ?the only two modes of transport used by John, he may have faced a hard time commuting during the rush hours.
C. In the 100-meter race, Amy's co-participants won Silver and Bronze and she performed exceedingly well; it follows that Amy won Gold.
D. The evidence collected reveals that the financial fraud was executed by neither one nor all the team members. Therefore, it can be concluded that it was executed by either some team members or a third party.
E. In an annual test of Midland high school students, the average score of neither the boys nor the girls are more than 50; thus, the average score of the total students is not more than 50.
Correct Answer: C
Argument construction The argument is simple to understand. An attorney argues that since the garage and the main door of the client's house were not bolted on the murder-night, a thief must have intruded the home to steal valuables. The client's wife would have confronted him and this led the thief to murder her. This follows that his client who is accused of the murder must be acquitted. Flaw in the argument The attorney's argument, simply put, is:
(Garage and main door were open) => (A Thief must have entered) => (Since a thief was present in the house that night, he must be the murderer) => (His client must be acquitted)
What is the flaw in the argument?
Only on the basis that the garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night, the attorney
claims that the chance that a thief must have broken into the house is 100%. He does not consider that
other explanations for the garage and main door not being bolted might be possible. For example, the
client may have committed the murder and then himself opened the garage and the main door to make it
look like the work of an outsider.
Also, what are the chances that if an outsider did come in, that outsider was a thief? Was any theft noted
or reported at the client's home that night? Was a thief noticed in the vicinity of the client's home that
night? The attorney provides no evidence to substantiate his claim that a thief came into the client's house
that night.
Further, if a thief did come into the house and was indeed confronted by the client's wife, is there any proof
of such a confrontation in the house that night? Further, is such a confrontation a sufficient reason to drive
a thief to murder?
Thus, the evidence that the garage and the main door were not bolted on the murder-night does not
actually absolve the attorney's client. The client can still be the culprit. The flaw in the attorney's argument
is that the attorney does not even consider that there might be other explanations for the open garage and
main door and presents the explanation that best serves his and his client's interests as the only one
possible.
Predict a parallel argument
Upon looking at the options, we find that the options are on varied topics. So, we need to read each of
them one by one and select the best option. To find the parallel flaw argument, we first need to analyze the
Question 333:
A hundred students of Midtown college were asked to pick their preference for one of three genres of movies: romantic, drama, and tragedy. Each of them picked one of the three genres. More than half picked romantic, more than a quarter picked drama and at least one picked tragedy. When asked about the genre of the movie Titanic, however, more than three quarter viewed it as a romantic movie.
If all of the statements above are true, which one of the following must also be true?
A. Only the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.
B. Only the students whose preferences were romantic and tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.
C. At least one student from each genre of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.
D. Some students whose preference was romantic genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.
E. Some students whose preference was tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.
Correct Answer: D
Argument construction
The survey covers 100 students in Midtown college. They were asked to pick their preference for one of
the three genres of movies: romantic, drama, and tragedy. More than 50% picked romantic, more than
25% picked drama and at least 1 student picked tragedy. When asked about the movie Titanic, however,
more than 75% viewed it as a romantic movie.
Predict an Inference
Presenting the information mathematically will help.
Say R represents Romantic genre; D represents Drama genre; and T represents Tragedy genre.
Let's first find out the minimum values of R, D and T.
It is given that there are 100 students, thus, the percent figures represent the actual numbers.
We know that
More than 50% picked romantic, thus R ≥ 51;
More than 25% picked drama, thus D ≥ 26;
At least 1 student picked tragedy, thus T ≥1
Let's now find out the maximum values of R, D and T. Remember that a student could choose only one of
the three genres, and every student did choose one of these three genres. So, the sum of R, D and T
would be 100.
We know that
Maximum value of R would happen when the values of D and T are minimum. So, it would be 100 − 26 − 1
= 73
Likewise, Maximum value of D would be 100 −51 − 1 = 48
Maximum value of T would be 100 − 51 − 26 = 23
51 ≤ R ≤ 73
26 ≤ D ≤ 48
1 ≤ T ≤ 23
We have to see in how many ways the number of votes for Titanic viewed as a romantic movie can be
more than 75%.
Since there can be many inferences, we need to see the option statements to get the correct answer.
Answer choices explanation:
[Only the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres of movies viewed Titanic as a
romantic movie.] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. Even some students from each genre can
make the figure more than 75%. For example, 60 students who voted R, 30 students who voted D and 5
students who voted T could have viewed Titanic as a romantic movie. Further, since 'more than 75%' can stretch up to 100%, even all the 100 students covered in the survey can view Titanic as a romantic movie.
[Only the students whose preferences were romantic and tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. For the same reasoning, as with option [Only the students whose preferences were romantic and drama genres …] this option is incorrect.
[At least one student from each genre of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. If the maximum number of students (73) whose preference is romantic movies and the minimum number of students (26) whose preference is drama movies view Titanic as a romantic movie, the total number of students equals 73 + 26 = 96 number of students > 75%. So, even if none of the students whose preference is tragedy movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie, the given survey fact - more than 75% of students view Titanic as a romantic movie – can still hold.
[Some students whose preference was romantic genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie.] This is correct. The minimum number of students whose preference is Romantic movies is 51. This means that the maximum number of students whose preference is drama or tragedy movies is 100 −51= 49. This is less than 75% of all surveyed students. Since the number of students who view Titanic as a romantic movie is more than 75%, some students whose preference is romantic movies must view Titanic as a romantic movie.
[Some students whose preference was tragedy genres of movies viewed Titanic as a romantic movie] This is incorrect. This is not necessarily true. With the same reasoning as used in option C, this is incorrect.
Question 334:
If Amy were a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry, she would have won the best actress award. She is not a tall and fair actress since she has not won the best actress award.
The conclusion above is flawed because the author does not consider that Amy could
A. have won an award for scriptwriting
B. be a singer from the mainstream film industry
C. be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream film industry
D. be an actress belonging to a mainstream theatre group
E. have won an award for some other mainstream work
Correct Answer: C
Argument construction
This is a typical conditional statement. If then argument with its contrapositive.
We have the conditional statement:
P: Amy were a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry.
Q: She would have won the best actress award.
P -> Q
Thus, the contrapositive statement would be:
~Q -> ~P
~Q: Amy has not won the best actress award.
~P: She is not a tall and fair actress from mainstream film industry.
In words:
If Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film
industry.
We can rewrite the contrapositive statement using since as:
Since Amy has not won the best actress award, she is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film
industry./p>
The statement can also be rewritten as
Amy is not a tall and fair actress from the mainstream film industry since she has not won the best actress
award.
Now let's bring out the statement given in the argument.
She (Amy) is not a tall and fair actress since she has not won the best actress award.
Predict a Flaw
Comparing the two statements, we find that 'from the mainstream film industry,' is missing in the argument statement. Thus, this makes the conclusion unsound. Amy could still be a tall and fair actress but from a non-mainstream industry.
Predictive Flaw: Amy could be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream industry.
Answer choices explanation:
[have won an award for scriptwriting] This is incorrect. This is irrelevant. The premise is that Amy has not
won the best actress award. Scriptwriting domain is not relevant.
[be a singer from the mainstream film industry] This is incorrect. Singing domain is also irrelevant.
[be a tall and fair actress from a non-mainstream film industry] This is correct. This matches our predictive
flaw.
[be an actress belonging to a mainstream theatre group] This is incorrect. First, it misses that the
qualification 'tall and fair'; second, we cannot conclude that the 'mainstream theatre group' is not a part of
mainstream film industry.
[have won an award for some other mainstream work] This is incorrect. All we know that she has not won
the best actress award. Rest is not relevant.
Question 335:
Each year, the number of students caught copying in examination is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the outcry about copying in examination ought to be put to rest, as the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.
Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author's argument?
A. Although the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license each year is very small, the total number of incidences of students traveling without a valid ticket is many times greater.
B. The punishments upon being caught copying in examination are graver than those upon being caught driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.
C. Fewer students would take their chances with driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket than with copying in examination.
D. Cheating in general--including copying in examination--is more prevalent than driving without a valid driving license.
E. The prevalence of wrongdoings such as copying in examination, driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket among students is inversely proportional to their probability of getting caught.
Correct Answer: B
Argument construction The argument attempts to convince that since the number of students caught copying in examination each year is nearly the same as the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license each year, and the number of students caught traveling without a valid ticket, the uproar about the act of copying in
examination is not required. Copying in examination in fact almost as commonplace as the acts of driving
without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.
Conclusion: The act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as the acts of driving without a
valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket.
Predict a Weakener
We need to weaken the conclusion that the act of copying in examination is almost as ordinary as the acts
of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. We must cast a doubt over the
comparison between the act of copying in examination and the acts of driving without a valid driving
license and traveling without a valid ticket. The weakener of the argument would be something that shows
Copying in Examinations to be extraordinary (in some respect) as compared to the other two acts. Though
all the three acts mentioned attract punishments, do the quantum or the degree of punishments differ?
Certainly, they do! The punishments for driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid
ticket are usually monetary; however, those for copying in examination could be: disgrace, discredit for the
test, reexamination, repetition of the course, debarring from the course, and in the extreme case, criminal
prosecution. These are certainly severer than the monitory punishments. And this makes the act of
copying in examination incomparable to that of driving without a valid driving license and traveling without
a valid ticket.
Predictive Weakener: The consequences for the act of copying in examination are severer than those for
driving without a valid driving license and traveling without a valid ticket.
Answer choices explanation:
[Although the number of students caught driving without a valid driving license ...] This is incorrect. The
statement does not talk about the act of copying in examination. It tries to make a relationship between the
other two acts, which are not the focus of the conclusion.
[The punishments upon being caught copying in examination...] This is correct. This matches our
predictive weakener.
[Fewer students would take their chances with driving without a valid driving license ...] This is incorrect.
The premise mentions that the number of students caught each year for the three acts of wrongdoings is
similar. This option states that there are fewer students who are inclined to try driving without a valid
driving license and traveling without a valid ticket than are inclined to try copying in examination. So, we
can infer that there is a relatively greater number of students who copy in examinations. Thus, this option
rather bolsters the claim that the act of copying in examination is in fact almost as mundane as (or, in fact,
more mundane than) the acts of driving without a valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. It is
rather a strengthener.
[Cheating in general--including copying in examination--is more ...] This is incorrect. This is not a
weakener. It is a generic statement and lacks reasoning to weaken the argument.
[The prevalence of wrongdoings such as copying in examination...] This is incorrect. From the premise, we
know that the number of students caught copying in examination is similar to the number driving without a
valid driving license or traveling without a valid ticket. However, the probability of getting caught for each of
these three wrongdoings may be different. For example, copying in examinations may be more strictly
checked than traveling without a valid ticket. Therefore, the prevalence of the three wrongdoings may be
different. This option does not give us any information to mark out copying in examinations as in any way
extraordinary or distinct from the other two wrongdoings.
Question 336:
Palmistry -- the art of understanding an individual's present personality and predicting his or her future state through the study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands -- is an unscientific technique. In a study, most palmists' assertions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were found to be mere intelligent guesses.
Which one of the following is an assumption necessary to the argument?
A. Individuals with the same financial status usually do not have a similar personality.
B. There is a stable correlation between an individual's personality and his or her financial status.
C. Palmistry is an effective means of predicting how personalities of individuals evolve over the long term.
D. There are numerous other methods for understanding the personality of an individual that are more precise than palmistry.
E. The financial future of a person is one of the most important concerns that palmists address.
Correct Answer: B
Argument construction
Palmistry is the art of understanding an individual's personality and predicting his future state through the
study of the shape, size, and lines of the hands. But it is an unscientific technique. Many palmists'
predictions about the present financial status of the individuals in the sample population were purely smart
guesstimates and not scientific deductions.
Predict an Assumption
As per the given definition, Palmistry is the art of:
1.
Understanding the personality
2.
Foretelling the future state
Of an individual.
By seeing your hand, a palmist will both:
be able to understand the kind of person that you are today (A) and predict what's going to happen in your
future (B)
The Conclusion is: Palmistry is Unscientific.
Why: Because the study shows that Palmists' assertions about the present Financial Status failed (were
merely intelligent guesses).
Predictive Assumption(s): Here are the assumptions that this argument makes:
Predictive Assumption 1: The study is correct, with no major flaw in its design or calculations.
Predictive Assumption 2: Financial status is related to personality (Palmistry is about understanding the
present personality whereas the study tested assertions about present financial status. So, the
researchers must have thought that present financial status is related to/ a part of personality).
Predictive Assumption 3: If Palmistry cannot do A, it cannot do B too. (Though the report only concerns a
present attribute of a person (his present financial status), the author makes a conclusion about Palmistry
in general, including its ability to predict future states.)
Predictive Assumption 4: Scientific things never behave unexpectedly.
Answer choices Explanation:
[Individuals with the same financial status usually do not have a similar personality.] This is incorrect.
Palmistry seeks to understand the (present) personality, not the financial status, of an individual. The
relation between personalities of individuals with same financial status, or between the financial statuses of
individuals with a similar personality is not covered or hinted at in the argument.
[There is a stable correlation between an individual's personality...] This is correct. This matches our
second predictive assumption.
[Palmistry is an effective means of predicting how personalities...] This is incorrect. This is irrelevant.
[There are numerous other methods for understanding the personality...] This is incorrect. This is out of
scope. The argument is not concerned about the other techniques.
[The financial future of a person is one of the most important concerns that palmists address.] This is
incorrect. This is irrelevant. The argument is not concerned about the type of issues palmists address.
Question 337:
There are exactly ten stores and no other buildings on Oak Street. On the north side of the street, from
west to east, are stores 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9; on the south side of the street, also from west to east, are stores
2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. The stores on the north side are located directly across the street from those on the
south side, facing each other in pairs, as follows: 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 10. Each store
is decorated with lights in exactly one of the following colors:
green, red, and yellow. The stores have been decorated with lights according to the following conditions:
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of any store adjacent to it.
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of the store directly across the street from it.
Yellow lights decorate exactly one store on each side of the street.
Red lights decorate store 4.
Yellow lights decorate store 5.
If green lights decorate five stores on the street, then which one of the following statements must be true?
A. Green lights decorate store 9.
B. Red lights decorate store 2.
C. Red lights decorate store 7.
D. Red lights decorate store 10.
E. Yellow lights decorate store 8.
Correct Answer: E
The trick here is to figure out which of the ten stores are the five that will have green lights. On the north side, with store 3 always green, we will have to have a green light in store 7 or 9. (Remember, adjacent greens are prohibited.) It may be smart to draw out both possibilities. And happily the south side is determinable. On the south side, we need three more greens, and clearly they'll have to be stores 2, 6, and10. And with store 4 always red, the requisite (Rule 3) yellow will go to store 8. So here are the two options:
NEW QUESTIONS
Question 338:
There are exactly ten stores and no other buildings on Oak Street. On the north side of the street, from
west to east, are stores 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9; on the south side of the street, also from west to east, are stores
2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. The stores on the north side are located directly across the street from those on the
south side, facing each other in pairs, as follows: 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 10. Each store
is decorated with lights in exactly one of the following colors:
green, red, and yellow. The stores have been decorated with lights according to the following conditions:
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of any store adjacent to it.
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of the store directly across the street from it.
Yellow lights decorate exactly one store on each side of the street.
Red lights decorate store 4.
Yellow lights decorate store 5.
Which one of the following statements must be true?
A. Green lights decorate store 10.
B. Red lights decorate store 1.
C. Red lights decorate store 8.
D. Yellow lights decorate store 8.
E. Yellow lights decorate store 10.
Correct Answer: B
This one is a slam-dunk. We have deduced that store 1 has red lights.
Question 339:
There are exactly ten stores and no other buildings on Oak Street. On the north side of the street, from
west to east, are stores 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9; on the south side of the street, also from west to east, are stores
2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. The stores on the north side are located directly across the street from those on the
south side, facing each other in pairs, as follows: 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 10. Each store
is decorated with lights in exactly one of the following colors:
green, red, and yellow. The stores have been decorated with lights according to the following conditions:
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of any store adjacent to it.
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of the store directly across the street from it.
Yellow lights decorate exactly one store on each side of the street.
Red lights decorate store 4.
Yellow lights decorate store 5.
If green lights decorate store 7, then each of the following statements could be false EXCEPT:
A. Green lights decorate store 2.
B. Green lights decorate store 10.
C. Red lights decorate store 8.
D. Red lights decorate store 9.
E. Yellow lights decorate store 2.
Correct Answer: D
A mini-sketch for this question should recopy what we know and add "G" to store 7. Store 9, which we knew was "G/R," is now definitively "R." And that's it; we cannot confirm anything more on the south side. But that's enough: store 9 has to be red, so option [Red lights decorate store 9.] cannot be false. Of options [Green lights decorate store 2.] and [Yellow lights decorate store 2.], exactly one is true -- store 2 is green or yellow -- but we don't know which. Store 8could be red or yellow, so [Red lights decorate store 8.] can be false. And store 10 remains uncertain, so option [Green lights decorate store 10.] can be false too.
Question 340:
There are exactly ten stores and no other buildings on Oak Street. On the north side of the street, from
west to east, are stores 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9; on the south side of the street, also from west to east, are stores
2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. The stores on the north side are located directly across the street from those on the
south side, facing each other in pairs, as follows: 1 and 2; 3 and 4; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 10. Each store
is decorated with lights in exactly one of the following colors:
green, red, and yellow. The stores have been decorated with lights according to the following conditions:
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of any store adjacent to it.
No store is decorated with lights of the same color as those of the store directly across the street from it.
Yellow lights decorate exactly one store on each side of the street.
Red lights decorate store 4.
Yellow lights decorate store 5.
Which one of the following could be an accurate list of the colors of the lights that decorate stores 2, 4, 6,
8, and 10, respectively?
A. green, red, green, red, green
B. green, red, green, yellow, red
C. green, red, yellow, red, green
D. yellow, green, red, green, red
E. yellow, red, green, red, yellow
Correct Answer: B
The right answer is an acceptable matching for the five south side streets, and we've got most of that worked out. Stores 4 and 6 are red and green respectively, so options [green, red, yellow, red, green] and [yellow, green, red, green, red] can be crossed out. There is one and only one yellow light, so option [green, red, green, red, green] with no yellows and option [yellow, red, green, red, yellow] with two are both eliminated.
Nowadays, the certification exams become more and more important and required by more and more enterprises when applying for a job. But how to prepare for the exam effectively? How to prepare for the exam in a short time with less efforts? How to get a ideal result and how to find the most reliable resources? Here on Vcedump.com, you will find all the answers. Vcedump.com provide not only LSAC exam questions, answers and explanations but also complete assistance on your exam preparation and certification application. If you are confused on your LSAT-TEST exam preparations and LSAC certification application, do not hesitate to visit our Vcedump.com to find your solutions here.
